 |
|
|
|
Company Details Services Useful Links ........................... | IAM Reward Manager – in use Case
File - Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust Late in
1994, the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust (AMBMT) decided to undertake a full
review of the reward system Many of the current salaries paid to staff were out
of line with market rates and there was no system in place that would take the
Trust salaries forward, it having recently left the NHS system. It was
proposed that a full review of all positions should be carried out using Job
Evaluation in order to audit the current situation. A salary system would then
be built and maintained. External consultants would be used to assist in the Job
Evaluation process and to provide specialist knowledge. This
proposal was accepted by the Trustees in October 1994, started on the 2nd
November and presented to the Board on 18th January, 1995 - a period of 10 weeks
from start to finish. The
Objectives were: ‘To
identify current and continuing elements of importance in remuneration so that a
structure of reward may be established that will enable the Trust to recruit,
retain and motivate suitable employees for the pursuit of organisational
objectives’ The
structure was to be flexible and simple, based on a discriminating and
purposeful policy of payment for performance. The
tool chosen was the IAM’s computerised ‘Reward Manager’ software as it met
the following ‘essential’ criteria: 1.
That employees should
have an active part in the process. 2.
The System was fully
computerised saving time and minimising the amount of paperwork required as
manpower resources were limited. 3.
The System facilitated
the design of a salary and grade matrix. 4.
The System avoided the
need for lengthy, time-consuming Job Evaluation Panels, which take up a lot of
costly management time. 5.
The System would be used
and owned by the Trust available on an on-going basis and for future reviews. A programme was then drawn up; the main elements of which were as follows:
The Job
Information stage was very substantially completed within 3 (three) weeks, and
an initial ‘preview sample’ (benchmark) of jobs was done and evaluated
before the process of job evaluation began in earnest. This enabled the Project
Team to put sown some markers for the broad range of the evaluation. In
particular, the team formed a view of the evaluations of the senior managers and
the ‘key posts’, thus, in a sense, defining the ‘parameters’ of the job
evaluation exercise. A ‘benchmark’
sample of jobs were evaluated to provide an extremely solid basis for
‘slotting-on’ the remainder of the population under review. (Alternatively,
all jobs could have been easily evaluated on the same basis). Following
‘benchmarking’, the team, proceeded to ‘slot’ the remaining jobs into
the evaluations, taking account of the framework established. External
salary survey data was then used by the ‘Reward Manager’ System and to
project a ‘suggested’ Salary Grade Scale for the ANBMT related to their
location and Industrial Classification size and type. CONCLUSIONS By means
of this exercise, The Trust identified a percentage salary drift, as was
anticipated, and instituted proceedings to make savings in the future. Note:
No action was taken with staff who were identified as being overpaid, apart from
‘red - circling’. Finally
a new salary Structure was drawn up and staff placed upon that structure
depending upon their new band and grade, and key performance factors identified
to be used in conjunction with the ‘Reward Manager’ System as the basis for
future performance and incremental pay. Case File - Teachers
Assurance
|